<quoted text>"Guantanamo bay is the humanistic thing to do. Just imprison people without trial and piss on them all day all in the name of "national security"You don't have a fucking idea what you're talking about, and you are offensive. Shall I start spreading slanderous trash about Muslims to keep up with you. jihad boy?Humanists are horrified by Gitmo. Preserving the right not to be tortured is not expensive. It actually costs more to deny it.Plus, I think you're repeating yourself, and I believe that I've said all I have to say. I support political and social secular humanism, and a government that is about 70-80% regulated capitalism, and about 20-30% socialism. That means about an average of 25% of income going into the kitty as taxes, most of that going to infrastructure, human development, and the social safety net.I see no value for religion anywhere, but especially for organized, politicized religion in the United States. The faith experience for me in my world is one of an cruel and infantilizing ideology. I applaud its atrophy and journey into irrelevance.You disagree.Does that about summarize it?

70-80% regulated capitalism? 20-30% socialism? What does that mean exactly? What is included in these figures? How do you even attempt to quantify policy? And 25% of what income? Earned income, sole proprietorship income? Corporate income? Capital gains income?

Secular humanism is just as open to interpretation as any religion. While you and perhaps other humanists you know may look at Guantanamo as horrific, others may very easily argue that Guantanamo is torturing a few humans to keep millions of humans safe, and is hence a humanistic decision.

<quoted text>No I am not. Apparently, you have no idea what I am saying.<quoted text>Wrong again. I concern myself exclusively with the problem of politicized, organized Christianity in America. I never discuss the Canadian or South African problem. Nor the Muslim problem in America.I don't care about Christians individually except the ones that mouth off here.<quoted text>Yes, you do.<quoted text>I hope you enjoy them. Do you want some of our?<quoted text>You haven't been paying attention.<quoted text>The hell you aren't. You are extremely biased in favor of religion. You keep telling me what a wonderful thing Christianity is. You'll learn.<quoted text>Me, too. Later.

Oh please, you ramble on about Christianity, period. You don't talk exclusively about Christians in America. You go and on and on about the evil of Christianity, not the evil of American Christians.

There are a multitude of American televangelists that you can discuss and criticise. You can talk about that stupid creationist museum in Kentucky and how it is misleading the public. Talk about abortion and stem cell generation and their hinderance of it. Name the churches and the church groups you have encountered. You don't do that. You just ramble on about "Christianity", and claim to be a great authority on the matter. You assert that I don't know them, only you know them, and I have yet to learn.

I do not tell you how wonderful Christianity is. I tell you that it is not as bad as you assert it to be, or more accurately they are no different to any other group of people.

<quoted text>I do not deride your take on religion in your culture. I deride your take on religion in the world, without having seen the world.

True Truth speak nothing except..True Truth...Much love & thanks to our savior Jesus Christ..& to the true truth & to the speaking in all our hearts in one accord, as You said we would know & to this divine plan that You have laid out for us all that choose to SEE, love, follow & watch. Much Love to you True Truth & to all. We are ready to walk with Christ forever & He is ready for us. God Blessand the Truth

<quoted text>1. Do you use the Bible as the source of your religious beliefs?2. How is Christianity different where you live? Do they not believe in the Hebrew God/Jesus?3. Have you proven that the God of your holy book exists?When you answer these three questions honestly, we may have something left with which we can have a conversation.

1. Nope. I'm a muslim.2. Most Christians in South Africa don't seek to put their Bible into politics. They believe in Jesus. 3. Nope. I have belief, and personal evidence that is good enough for me.

<quoted text>70-80% regulated capitalism? 20-30% socialism? What does that mean exactly? What is included in these figures? How do you even attempt to quantify policy? And 25% of what income? Earned income, sole proprietorship income? Corporate income? Capital gains income?

Secular humanism is just as open to interpretation as any religion. While you and perhaps other humanists you know may look at Guantanamo as horrific, others may very easily argue that Guantanamo is torturing a few humans to keep millions of humans safe, and is hence a humanistic decision.

<quoted text>Oh please, you ramble on about Christianity, period. You don't talk exclusively about Christians in America. You go and on and on about the evil of Christianity, not the evil of American Christians.There are a multitude of American televangelists that you can discuss and criticise. You can talk about that stupid creationist museum in Kentucky and how it is misleading the public. Talk about abortion and stem cell generation and their hinderance of it. Name the churches and the church groups you have encountered. You don't do that. You just ramble on about "Christianity", and claim to be a great authority on the matter. You assert that I don't know them, only you know them, and I have yet to learn.I do not tell you how wonderful Christianity is. I tell you that it is not as bad as you assert it to be, or more accurately they are no different to any other group of people.

Let's generalize this even more then, shall we. There is an inherent flaw in having religion present at all, actually. Though I do not prescribe to being against all religion it's a valid argument that cannot be ignored or denied.

With religion someone stating "god told me that I should do this" and all religious people will simply consider them to be perfectly sane and "normal" because they cannot say otherwise without facing the fact that their own religious belief is false since almost all religions state that their god "speaks" to them. This means that no matter what they claim, the chances of a religious person, especially one of the same religion, seeing anything wrong with the statement, even when what they should do is immoral, is slim to none because it would require admitting what they perceive as impossible.

When everyone around has no religion and someone states "god told me to do this" we immediately wonder of the sanity of the person making this claim. Anything that is inherently detrimental we immediately assume that the person is delusional and should be watched closely or treated for their mental instability. There is no threat in admitting that the person is delusion as we would have no beliefs that doing so would betray.

There is a "save" for the religious people, that is to admit that they are unsure themselves and that they cannot account for such things as "god speaking" to them. However this is likely to not happen in areas of high zealotry and even moderate organized religious people tend not to question the claims of a god speaking to their fellows. Typically the most done is a wide berth approach to the ones making the claims unless they are preachers, in which case such claims are not questioned at all and are accepted without justification.

This is why evidence is so important to an atheist, without the justifications of belief, we can see that any claim requires evidence to support it's validity enough as to justify believing it.

<quoted text>Let's generalize this even more then, shall we. There is an inherent flaw in having religion present at all, actually. Though I do not prescribe to being against all religion it's a valid argument that cannot be ignored or denied.With religion someone stating "god told me that I should do this" and all religious people will simply consider them to be perfectly sane and "normal" because they cannot say otherwise without facing the fact that their own religious belief is false since almost all religions state that their god "speaks" to them. This means that no matter what they claim, the chances of a religious person, especially one of the same religion, seeing anything wrong with the statement, even when what they should do is immoral, is slim to none because it would require admitting what they perceive as impossible.When everyone around has no religion and someone states "god told me to do this" we immediately wonder of the sanity of the person making this claim. Anything that is inherently detrimental we immediately assume that the person is delusional and should be watched closely or treated for their mental instability. There is no threat in admitting that the person is delusion as we would have no beliefs that doing so would betray.There is a "save" for the religious people, that is to admit that they are unsure themselves and that they cannot account for such things as "god speaking" to them. However this is likely to not happen in areas of high zealotry and even moderate organized religious people tend not to question the claims of a god speaking to their fellows. Typically the most done is a wide berth approach to the ones making the claims unless they are preachers, in which case such claims are not questioned at all and are accepted without justification.This is why evidence is so important to an atheist, without the justifications of belief, we can see that any claim requires evidence to support it's validity enough as to justify believing it.

Well with nearly all people I know, if someone tells them that God is speaking to them and telling them what to do, they usually assume it is some hallucination of psychotic condition. Perhaps scitzophrenia or multiple personality disorder. From the theists I know, there are very few that would fall for the claims of someone that God is talking to him and telling him to do whatever absurd actions.

And you overestimate the importance of evidence to an atheist. Some atheists are rational and require evidence. Others are emotional and simply believe whatever they originally wanted to believe.

You have perhaps read lots of claims and information about the universe. For how many claims did you really look at the technique of experimentation, the mathematical models, validity of results and competing results? Most people don't have the time and end up just accepting the claim because it was made by some phd at some research institution. Whether the claim is valid or not isn't the point. The point is, you would accept it with little or no question.

<quoted text>Well with nearly all people I know, if someone tells them that God is speaking to them and telling them what to do, they usually assume it is some hallucination of psychotic condition. Perhaps scitzophrenia or multiple personality disorder. From the theists I know, there are very few that would fall for the claims of someone that God is talking to him and telling him to do whatever absurd actions.And you overestimate the importance of evidence to an atheist. Some atheists are rational and require evidence. Others are emotional and simply believe whatever they originally wanted to believe.You have perhaps read lots of claims and information about the universe. For how many claims did you really look at the technique of experimentation, the mathematical models, validity of results and competing results? Most people don't have the time and end up just accepting the claim because it was made by some phd at some research institution. Whether the claim is valid or not isn't the point. The point is, you would accept it with little or no question.

But they don't do that when a preacher claims to be "told by god." There is always an exception. The scriptures themselves are the biggest one, you accept, blindly, that it was "inspired" by your god without ever considering it was written by people who do exactly that "god told me this." This is gullibility in it's purest form. That is why I state that religion itself has this exception which is completely irrational and unjustifiable, you are believing that "god told me to kill" when you conclude that the bible is the "word of god."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.